Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Implanted RFID Chips Linked To Cancer

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the probably-too-late-to-sell-verichip dept.

Biotech 247

An anonymous reader writes "The Associated Press is reporting that microchip implants have induced cancer in laboratory animals and dogs. A series of research articles spanning more than a decade found that mice and rats injected with glass-encapsulated RFID transponders developed malignant, fast-growing, lethal cancers in up to 1% to 10% of cases. The tumors originated in the tissue surrounding the microchips and often grew to completely surround the devices. To date, about 2,000 RFID devices have been implanted in humans worldwide, according to VeriChip Corp." We recently discussed the California ban on companies requiring such implants.

cancel ×

247 comments

first tits! (0, Offtopic)

Asshat_Nazi (946431) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522365)

boobs are a myth..

Re:first tits! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20522389)

A few years ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I had to take a piss. As I entered the john a big beautiful all-American football hero type, about twenty-five, came out of one of the booths. I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was "straight" and married - and in any case I was sure I wouldn't have a chance with him.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated, hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still warm from his sturdy young ass. I found not only the smell but the shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat, stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd - a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as a man's wrist.

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd always been a heavy rimmer and had lapped up more than one little clump of shit, but that had been just an inevitable part of eating ass and not an end in itself. Of course I'd had jerk-off fantasies of devouring great loads of it (what rimmer hasn't), but I had never done it. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of the world's handsomest young stud.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it smelled. I've found since then that shit nearly almost does.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big brown cock, beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily, sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My only regret was the donor of this feast wasn't there to wash it down with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with the rich bitterness of shit.

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six orgasms in the process.

I often think of that lovely young guy dropping solid gold out of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could, and at least once did, bring to a grateful shiteater.

Where's the 'haha' tag? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20522685)

Seriously, anyone who participates in this deserves what they get.

Someone better tell Carrie from MythBusters (2, Interesting)

Limburgher (523006) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522371)

Didn't she get one implanted in one episode?
Makes me think twice about wanting one for my dog. . .

Re:Someone better tell Carrie from MythBusters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20522503)

Kari.

Re:Someone better tell Carrie from MythBusters (-1, Troll)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522507)

I, for one, would like to implant my penis into her vagina.

Re:Someone better tell Carrie from MythBusters (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20522525)

Did you know that your name sounds like "harry vagina" when spoken by somebody with a head cold?

Re:Someone better tell Carrie from MythBusters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20522541)

You are snarky and sarcastic and MEAN!

*moans softly, fingers rabbit-clit*

Chaw, chee-chaw, chee-chaw, chee-chaw!

And yes, I do realize that I am in dire need of psychiatric help. I am just too afraid to seek it. Help me.

Re:Someone better tell Carrie from MythBusters (4, Insightful)

Limburgher (523006) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522737)

Hey now, that's really crude. Here I am expressing a legitimate concern for the health of another human being where it may very well be warranted, and all you can do is make 5th-grade level jokes.

Her health ought to be first priority. Her dreamaliciousness must come second. Er, . . .

Re:Someone better tell Carrie from MythBusters (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522829)

You forgot to add "dude".

Christ, the standard is really slipping.

 

Re:Someone better tell Carrie from MythBusters (4, Funny)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522885)

I, for one, would like to implant my penis into her vagina.

Aren't you nervous that the "myths" surrounding your penis might get "busted"?

Besides, the implantation might trigger the explosive growth of a colony of cells.

Re:Someone better tell Carrie from MythBusters (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522913)

More like it is busted that Larry Bagina can get laid with Kari. :P

Re:Someone better tell Kari from MythBusters (1)

maniac/dev/null (170211) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522927)

I'd like to see Kari bust the myth that basic cable is not governed by the FCC and can show full frontal nudity.

Re:Someone better tell Carrie from MythBusters (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#20523105)

Besides, the implantation might trigger the explosive growth of a colony of cells.

And there's a chance that it could be malignant [lsu.edu]

Carrie? (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522889)

Who is Carrie? You mean, Kari [discovery.com] !

Re:Someone better tell Carrie from MythBusters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20523077)

Speaking if mythbusters, they looked like idiots for pronouncing the name as 'ar-fids' instead of spelling it out, despite hearing the correct pronunciation from someone they interviewed.

That jet car was kind of lame too.

Re:Someone better tell Carrie from MythBusters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20523167)

Is there something shocking about a foreign body transmitting radio waves inside of a living organism causing cancer, I figured that was kinda a "duhhh" kinda subject.

Big Tag has known about this for years (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20522377)

But they continue to claim the implants are actually healthful.

And when the word gets out about second-hand tag being harmful, there will be hell to pay.

Dalkon Shield (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522393)

Anyone here old enough to remember the Dalkon Shield [wikipedia.org] implants? Sold by the millions, recommend by doctors as ideal and healthful. A.H Robbins is no more.

On the bright side... (2, Interesting)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522645)

Researchers now have a new lead in the fight against cancer. If the stats prove consistent then we may be able to find a link between certain types of foreign molecules in the body and cancer risk.

Your comment kinda reminds me of the asbestos revelations... there was a time when asbestos was put into cigarette filters as an advertised health feature.

Regards.

No talk about RFI (2, Interesting)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522381)

There was no talk whether it was the container or the RFI emission. I would have liked to see the results of 'dead' chips versus 'live' chips.

This may answer the issue of cell phone cancer.

Of course, the cell phone company will claim that it only happens if you have the phone (headset) to your ear for 6 hours a day. And of course, the manual says that they only recommend no more than 4 hours of use a month.

Re:No talk about RFI (5, Interesting)

evilviper (135110) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522501)

There was no talk whether it was the container or the RFI emission.

That's because they assume their readers aren't idiots...

RFID chips don't emit electromagnetic radiation, they only (really) reflect it. What's more, the energy levels are far lower than any number of other day-to-day activities, in the same frequency ranges as other signals all around us, and RFID chips are only scanned for a couple seconds at a time, and only on occasion.

If the small and occasional radiation from RFID chips could cause cancer, we'd all be lucky to survive for a few months after birth before dying of cancer.

Re:No talk about RFI (1)

raduf (307723) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522615)

The received power decreases with the cube of the distance. So a phone at 1-2 cm away (plastic and skin) may have less effect then a n embedded RFID. Not that it means radio waves do cause cancer.

Serious question (5, Interesting)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522675)

RFID chips don't emit electromagnetic radiation, they only (really) reflect it. What's more, the energy levels are far lower than any number of other day-to-day activities, in the same frequency ranges as other signals all around us, and RFID chips are only scanned for a couple seconds at a time, and only on occasion.
If they reflect radiation in the same frequency ranges as other signals all around us, don't they reflect that energy all the time, not just on occasions when they are purposefully scanned?

Re:Serious question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20522747)

Not sure but here's my guess..

Energy around is spread across wide areas of spectrum, not enough at the specific frequency to "power" the rfid. You can make white light with three peaks in the red/green/blue wavelengths... or you can make white light by spreading the power over the whole visible spectrum.

Re:Serious question (1)

Auntie Virus (772950) | more than 6 years ago | (#20523089)

You can make white light with three peaks in the red/green/blue wavelengths... or you can make white light by spreading the power over the whole visible spectrum
You mean, Spock need not be blind?

Re:Serious question (3, Insightful)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522943)

From a physical point of view, it doesn't matter. The average energy flux through a given point is going to be the same whether the implant is there or not. (First order approximation, depends on the convexity of the reflector, and that energy comes from random (if limited) directions).

Re:Serious question (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20522963)

Depends on the RFID implementation, but...with passive RFID, the electromagnetic radiation actually *powers* the tag, with just enough juice to send a signal back to the scanner. So, basically, without being scanned... it has no way to be transmit anything.

My bet is they did something dumb like use a formaldehyde container or something.

Re:No talk about RFI (1)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522891)

Reflect it??? No, they emit it. Just because they are powered by RFI means that they do not emit RFI. Reflect means to bounce back w/o change.

Re:No talk about RFI (2, Informative)

LinuxGeek (6139) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522895)

RFID packages don't reflect EMR, the process is a bit more involved.
  1. Tuned coil builds energy from transmitted RF.
  2. Energy is used to power chip, calculate response and transmit the answer (more RF, local this time).
  3. When the reader RF ceases, the stored energy in the coil will collapse which will generate a fairly strong local magnetic pulse and possibly a narrow-band high frequency EMR pulse of its own.

These things would happen very frequently if worn out in the real world and that would concern me greatly. I won't be wearing one.

Re:No talk about RFI (3, Interesting)

Original Replica (908688) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522511)

I immediately thought of the RFI emissions as the culprit. Wouldn't having the precisely the same RF transmissions going through precisely the same tissue over and over again cause much greater damage over time then a varied transmission or transmitting from a varied location? I'm thinking of the damage kinda like harmonics: if you tap the same place on structure at the right frequency you get resonance, if you tap at the same frequency but randomize the location and direction of each tap you get no resonance, if you randomize the tap so there is no set frequency you get no resonance. Whatever little DNA bit that happens to be effected by the RFI emission is going to get the exact same assault over and over until it is eventually destroyed.

Re:No talk about RFI (2, Funny)

weg (196564) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522531)

There was no talk whether it was the container or the RFI emission. I would have liked to see the results of 'dead' chips versus 'live' chips.

I wouldn't doubt this study. The fact that they've determined that "about 1% to 10%" of the sample suffer from cancer indicates that it's extremely accurate!

Re:No talk about RFI (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 6 years ago | (#20523163)

I wouldn't doubt this study. The fact that they've determined that "about 1% to 10%" of the sample suffer from cancer indicates that it's extremely accurate!

You have no clue how medical statistics works, do you?

Re:No talk about RFI (1)

Cadallin (863437) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522573)

I'd be willing to bet it is the container. Shockingly there do seem to be people sensitive to Silicon and Silicon based compounds (see the controversy over Silicone breast implants.)

I say: 1. No more implants in people. 2. More Study.

What exactly is your proposed mechanism for RF signals causing cancer? I remain convinced that the "Cellphones Cause Cancer" people are a mixture of Schizophrenics and Hypochondriacs (both natural, and amphetamine induced.)

Re:No talk about RFI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20522967)

Glass == Silicon != Silicone

Re:No talk about RFI (1)

Bender0x7D1 (536254) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522585)

I would have liked to see the results of 'dead' chips versus 'live' chips.

All RFID chips are "dead" except when being read. So, unless the pet lived at a vet's office and curled up under the RFID reader everyday, it wouldn't get and radio frequency radiation from the chip. Which is probably the kind of situation they put the lab animals through.

Also no talk about... (3, Insightful)

The Monster (227884) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522663)

So "up to 1% to 10% of cases" (whatever the hell that means) got cancer. Did they mention what percentage of mice that weren't implanted with RFID tags got cancer? It really matters what the baseline is, you know.

Re:Also no talk about... (1)

ZombieWomble (893157) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522815)

There is no talk about it, because it seems none of the studies cited in the article actually set out to determine the increase in cancer due to RFID devices, but rather tagged it on, perhaps to grab a few extra citations. Since they were designed as trials of other factors, there was no attempt to introduce a no-RFID control group. From TFA:

Because none of the studies had a control group of animals that did not get chips, the normal rate of tumors cannot be determined and compared to the rate with chips implanted.

Re:No talk about RFI (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20522691)

In the veterinary industry we've been implanting pets with RFID transponders for years. I'm not aware of any noticeable increase in implantation site neoplasms.

That said, animals do not necessarily have the same physiology as humans. For instance, it's well known that vaccinations can cause local injection site sarcomas in cats. However studies have shown that injections of inert saline have the same incidence of sarcomas, meaning that it's probable that the cat's innate immune response to the injection in some instances leads to cancer. That may be what's going on with these RFID chips in rats, and that doesn't imply that the same situation would occur with humans.

Re:No talk about RFI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20522865)

> This may answer the issue of cell phone cancer.

Studies of tens of thousands of cell phone users haven't turned up any evidence, so the "issue" is only one to people who believe lack of evidence is evidence in favor of their foregone conclusions.

And as for RFID implants, here's a newsflash: implanted foreign bodies can cause reactions, including malignancies. The occurrence is ridiculously low, millions of pets have these implants, and veterinarians are not reporting anything out of the ordinary. Must be a mass veterinary conspiracy, including at nonprofits and the SPCA, eh?

  The study can't even determine accuracy to the number of digits in the percentage of the population affected. It's quite clear that the editorship of slashdot doesn't represent nerds in any fashion, since nerds are reputed to actualy READ and apply CRITICAL THINKING.

So what's the cause? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20522385)

Is it something about the glass casing? Or the fact that it's emitting radio signals? If it's the latter, does that bode well for the whole cell phone/brain cancer thing? (I notice every new cell phone comes with a disclaimer about this now. I hope that this isn't the equivalent scenario to smoking in the 1940s, where everyone did it because they had no idea how dangerous it was.)

If its not the radio emissions, then is there something else causing it? Things like artificial joints (hips, knees, etc.) don't give 1-10% of implantees cancer. So what's the cause w/RFID chips? (This may be yet another reason to oppose RFIDs, but I'm more interested in the non-political issue here.)

Re:So what's the cause? (3, Informative)

NeverVotedBush (1041088) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522491)

RFID does not emit radio signals. It absorbs them selectively and the RFID scnner/transmitter senses the change to the emitted field to know what the RFID is saying. But the RFID tag (passive tags) just basically sit there and alternately go high impedance or short out their antennas to convey information. They get their power from the RF signal itself.

Re:So what's the cause? (2, Insightful)

cpghost (719344) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522623)

RFID chips do emit radio signals when sending data back to the transmitter. A receive-only RFID is kinda pointless...

That's just silly. (2, Funny)

Poromenos1 (830658) | more than 6 years ago | (#20523025)

Pointless? On the contrary, it would be very useful, like write-only memory [wikipedia.org] !

Nothing fishy here (5, Interesting)

mh1997 (1065630) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522417)

The FDA is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, which, at the time of VeriChip's approval, was headed by Tommy Thompson. Two weeks after the device's approval took effect on Jan. 10, 2005, Thompson left his Cabinet post, and within five months was a board member of VeriChip Corp. and Applied Digital Solutions. He was compensated in cash and stock options. Thompson, until recently a candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, says he had no personal relationship with the company as the VeriChip was being evaluated, nor did he play any role in FDA's approval process of the RFID tag. "I didn't even know VeriChip before I stepped down from the Department of Health and Human Services," he said in a telephone interview.
Yet another amazing coincidence. If I could just pay a dollar in taxes every time this happens, somebody sure could get rich.

Re:Nothing fishy here (4, Informative)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522705)

The FDA is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, which, at the time of VeriChip's approval, was headed by Tommy Thompson. Two weeks after the device's approval took effect on Jan. 10, 2005, Thompson left his Cabinet post, and within five months was a board member of VeriChip Corp. and Applied Digital Solutions. He was compensated in cash and stock options.

Thompson, until recently a candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, says he had no personal relationship with the company as the VeriChip was being evaluated, nor did he play any role in FDA's approval process of the RFID tag.

"I didn't even know VeriChip before I stepped down from the Department of Health and Human Services," he said in a telephone interview.


Yet another amazing coincidence. If I could just pay a dollar in taxes every time this happens, somebody sure could get rich.
Looky, it's the aspartame approval process all over again!

August 8, 1983-- Consumer Attorney, Jim Turner of the Community Nutrition Institute and Dr. Woodrow Monte, Arizona State University's Director of Food Science and Nutritional Laboratories, file suit with the FDA objecting to aspartame approval based on unresolved safety issues.

September, 1983-- FDA Commissioner Hayes resigns under a cloud of controversy about his taking unauthorized rides aboard a General Foods jet. (General foods is a major customer of NutraSweet) Burson-Marsteller, Searle's public relation firm (which also represented several of NutraSweet's major users), immediately hires Hayes as senior scientific consultant.

Fall 1983-- The first carbonated beverages containing aspartame are sold for public consumption.

What about pets? (3, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522421)

Hasn't it been common practice to inject pets with RFIDs for many years now?
Have these implants been causing cancer too?

Re:What about pets? (3, Insightful)

Chmcginn (201645) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522489)

Hasn't it been common practice to inject pets with RFIDs for many years now?
Yes.

Have these implants been causing cancer too?
Don't know. If the increase is small enough, and takes upwards of a decade to take affect, it would be difficult to notice outside of trials.

Re:What about pets? (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 6 years ago | (#20523095)

They claim a 1 to 10% increase in cancer, right at the site of the implant. Methinks vets would have noticed that if it was happening in pets.

Re:What about pets? (1)

Mycroft_514 (701676) | more than 6 years ago | (#20523067)

I had 2 pets injected in 1992. Both died in 2004, niether from cancer. The new dog got injected in 2004. He is fine as of this writing.

Competely ridiculous (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20522429)

More junk science.

News flash #1: RFID chips do not emit any RF except when they're being read.

News flash #2: Glass is inert.

More junk science for your junk science (2, Informative)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522451)

ANY physical contact that somehow disturbs a tissue causes cancer in the long run. Thats why many inert particles cause cancer when continuously taken in for over long periods of time.

Try - just take a small needle and continue to keep poking it in the same spot in your hand continuously for a year.

I find it interesting though (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522569)

In which case why aren't people with earrings getting lots of cancers from them? How about those people who "mod" themselves (studs etc) but not with glass RFIDs?

If it somehow increases the risk of cancer (even minus the RF stuff) more than the usual studs etc then I find that very interesting. Maybe it's the shape or surface of the glass? Could be something useful to learn about cancer from this.

Re:I find it interesting though (2, Informative)

unity100 (970058) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522701)

In which case why aren't people with earrings getting lots of cancers from them? How about those people who "mod" themselves (studs etc) but not with glass RFIDs?


because earrings are outside the skin, the initial wound is allowed to be healed, and the earring touches with the exterior of the skin without inducing any wound.

everything needs to be neutral. if any material within it has surfaces that disturbs the tissue where its implanted (and it is a high possibility) or, any material within it has properties that induces any kind of other continuous effects on the nearby tissue it may be a cause. granted, there is going to be a noticeable higher concentration of emissions around it - if passive, it will reflect a certain wavelength, if its active, itll emit a certain wavelength. therefore the vicinity will get affected.

Re:Competely ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20522589)

That glass is inert may be the problem. The immune system recognizes the object as "not self" for its lack of specific cell surface molecules. That triggers attack mechanisms that should work to absorb the object (but being inert, the attack doesn't stop). Granulation, scaring, and calluses would form... Such an unhealthy state of tissue could very well cause increased DNA damage that leads to cancer.

Re:Competely ridiculous (3, Informative)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522605)

More junk science.

News flash #1: RFID chips do not emit any RF except when they're being read.

News flash #2: Glass is inert.


So is chrysotile asbestos.

Re:Competely ridiculous (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20522671)


So is chrysotile asbestos.

So are clit rings. Do you have a point, or were you just going to equate asbestos particles with glass beads, and leave it at that?

Re:Competely ridiculous (1, Funny)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522813)

So are clit rings. Do you have a point, or were you just going to equate asbestos particles with glass beads, and leave it at that?

Yes, my point was that you are an idiot and I think I made that point rather well by providing a counterexample to your humorously faulty logic. Although I am glad to hear that your clit ring did not give you cancer. Maybe you can hang an RFID on it!

Re:Competely ridiculous (1)

Climate Shill (1039098) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522833)

News flash #2: Glass is inert.
So is chrysotile asbestos.

One suspected mechanism for asbestos-induced cancers is that the immune system repeatedly attacks the asbestos fibres (old ones tend to be completely covered in dead immune cells). The same may well be true of the implants, in which case the GP's claim that they're "inert" would be pretty stupid.

Re:Competely ridiculous (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522987)

One suspected mechanism for asbestos-induced cancers is that the immune system repeatedly attacks the asbestos fibres

Another one is chromosomal damage during mitosis when DNA is getting dragged across the mitotic spindle and gets snagged on an asbestos needle. The chromosome arm never makes it into one of the daughter cells, possibly triggering cancer if the chromosome had tumor suppressor genes on it etc. The asbestos doesn't need to chemically react with anything- it just needs to hold its needle shape and stay in one piece.

Re:Competely ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20522619)

I do not work in any bio* fields, but
1) Presumably, when implanted in humans, they are being used for work...to authenticate and gain access or something similar where they would be read occassionally. The human skin protects the cells inside a human body from lots of things including, but not limited to, low radioactive isotopes and background radiation. What effect would RF, even if only occasionally read, have from inside the human body? Not saying that it would have any effect, but it should be a question that's answered before wide use.
2) As far as I know, even if an object is inert, when injected inside of the human body, the human body works to reject foreign objects. At the very least, the human body has a tendency to form scar tissue around foreign bodies. Maybe in a small number of cases either the scar tissue, or human body's natural tendency to reject an object (with antibodies etc) or a combination of both results in cancer?
So, 1 and 2 and possibly other unforseen effects could actually cause cancer in a small percentage of cases. Even if it's a small percentage/remote possibility, I think it's worth finding out if there's any merit at all to the claims rather than attributing it to "junk science" before rfid implants go in to wide use in humans.

Re:Competely ridiculous (1)

Man On Pink Corner (1089867) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522707)

What effect would RF, even if only occasionally read, have from inside the human body?

None. You can either trust me on this, or go after the Nobel Prize that's waiting for anyone who can prove otherwise.

2) As far as I know, even if an object is inert, when injected inside of the human body, the human body works to reject foreign objects. At the very least, the human body has a tendency to form scar tissue around foreign bodies. Maybe in a small number of cases either the scar tissue, or human body's natural tendency to reject an object (with antibodies etc) or a combination of both results in cancer?

Why don't earrings cause cancer, then?

Re:Competely ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20522797)

Why don't earrings cause cancer, then?
As mentioned above, earrings aren't implanted. The initial piercing is allowed to heal over and develop new skin before the ring in put in - that means the earring itself is only in contact with an epidermal surface, fundamentally no different from jewelry worn outside the body. Of course, epidermal contact can still trigger an allergic reaction, but that is just as much a problem for clothing, jewelry, or anything else that you come into external contact with.

Implanted objects, conversely, are placed beneath the skin, and are in direct contact with living tissue. There is no protective layer of dead epidermal tissue between the implanted object and the body.

Earrings are a bad comparison for RFID tags; try comparing them to other subdermal implants instead (such as beads used in body modding). It would not surprise me in the slightest if those other implants carried some increased risk as well, despite being similarly inert.

Re:Competely ridiculous (1)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522849)

More to the point, why don't pacemakers and breast implants cause cancer?

Inert things inside the human body that are significantly larger than cells do not cause cancer. They might cause immune responses if the 'inert' material is poorly chosen, but they do not cause cancer, and there's another Nobel price waiting for anyone to demonstrate different.

Of course, particulates like asbestos and soot can cause cancer if they are in the body, like if they end up getting pulled into lung tissue. They interfere at the cellular level. And even larger things moving around in the body are dangerous and can cause aneurysm and whatnot, just ask people with air bubbles in their blood.

But anything big enough to see in the human body made of glass or certain plastics, anything that will not flake off, is not dangerous in and of itself, and so we must conclude that, in some way, either RFID manufacturers are idiots and used the wrong materials or it's the radio aspect that's causing cancer.

Standard Practise (2, Interesting)

Boa Constrictor (810560) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522443)

It's not surprising that interfering with a living thing in a very clumsy manner causes problems. It is -- and always has been -- about what is a tolerable level of damage to do. I don't know, but I can't think cattle branding is very healthy.

We make compromises on health all the time for convenience and aesthetics -- while most cosmetics are not technically harmful, spraying aluminium on your underarms* or using make-up is not going to give you health benefits. It's easier to take the car to work not cycle or walk (unless you walk down the same road).

*No, it's washing which is the healthy part to not smelling.

The only reason this is even news is that the big C is involved. We "civilised" people make hundreds of choices at the expense of our long term physical or mental health and this is not a novel situation. It will go ahead anyway if the benefits are great and people aren't instantly terrified of the c-word, else it will die out.

I still don't get it (5, Interesting)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522445)

What's the point of RFID implants? RFIDs are simple devices which can be fairly easily falsified and/or duplicated. Never mind that the implant itself can be removed and swapped. It's an intrusive security layer which offers no security whatsoever. And on top of that, it introduces privacy concerns... we have ubiquitous cameras all over major cities, why not RFID scanners?

BTW, here's an interesting Wired article [wired.com] on the subject.

Re:I still don't get it (2, Funny)

Bender0x7D1 (536254) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522643)

Most pets don't have the skill to remove or swap-out their own RFID implants.

Re:I still don't get it (1)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522665)

Most pets don't have the skill to remove or swap-out their own RFID implants.

Neither they have the skill to remove or swap their nametags.

Re:I still don't get it (1)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522861)

Really? Pets don't have the skill to remove their nametags? That's certainly an interesting claim.

Re:I still don't get it (1)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522929)

Oh for gods sake. Yeah, most pets don't have the skill to remove their nametags, atleast when properly placed. Anyway, i was discussing about RFID implants in human beings in the first place.

Re:I still don't get it (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522939)

Have you really had a pet? My parents had dogs that manage to squeeze out of their collars on occasion.

Re:I still don't get it (1)

TibbonZero (571809) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522971)

My cat removes any collar or harness I put on her so far. The only thing she kept on for more than a day or two was a necklace that I gave her, which she liked. Seriously.
I got her chipped because I knew that if she were to get outside that she would likely be without tag

sorry for the godwin (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522783)

What's the point of RFID implants?
The point is to be able to give people a number [holocaustr...roject.org] without the mediapathic [everything2.com] effect of a visible mark.

Big ol Thanx (2, Funny)

synonymous (707504) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522447)

Just wanted to drop a quick line to those testing these devices themselves.. A big heartfelt thank you for risking your life testing these awkward little gizmos. Guess I won't be rushing on out to the local Radio Shack to inflict myself, or pressuring my buddies into the latest fad of RFID chip. Sorry to hear about the health problems. Best wishes.

Radio shack isn't that bad (2, Funny)

symbolset (646467) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522771)

Guess I won't be rushing on out to the local Radio Shack to inflict myself,

Name address and phone number is all they ask from me when I buy stuff there, and they don't insist if I'm paying cash. They haven't demanded I let them implant a RFID chip yet.

Am I the only one who is relieved by this.... (1)

dashslotter (1093743) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522461)

...maybe I'll never have to get one now. Then again, they'll come up with something more invasive that doesn't cause cancer soon enough.

Well so now we know (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522475)

that the human races downfall will be technology. Whether it'll be some mass industrial accident releasing newly formed life forms that were support to create oil but they seem to all of a sudden prefer human flesh to us being a bunch of walking cancers as we radiate our bodies in the name of communication.

one thing remains clear... (1)

pjr.cc (760528) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522477)

We wont know if its real or not until someone with an RFID ends up with cancer and wins millions (billions?) of dollars from verichip.

Only a judge can decide on such important scientific matters (can you taste the sarcasm?)

Normal activity for the body (4, Interesting)

transporter_ii (986545) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522487)

I have studied cancer for quite some time and I do know that *sometimes* a tumor is the body trying to put a barrier around something it doesn't know what to do with. In fact, tumors, unless they are doing damage to an important organ, or grow very large, usually won't kill you. It is only when they start to metastasize that you run into trouble pretty quick.

In fact, I have talked to several people that knew people that had tumors for many, many years and never had any trouble, but after their doctors talked them into removing the tumors and doing radiation/chemo treatment, they were dead within a year. Things that make you go hmmmmm.

So a tumor around a foreign body like that doesn't shock me too much.

Re:Normal activity for the body (4, Funny)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522545)

How dare you try to bring reason to our alarmist discussion?!

Re:Normal activity for the body (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522773)

Well this guy has a good point. Companies should prepackage the RFID devices inside tumors at the factory so we don't have to grow our own. At the very least they should try to staple them into existing tumors.

Why can't these stupid scientists just come up with a protein that emits or absorbs specific RF frequencies based on regions of amino acids generated from a nonconserved segment of coding DNA which acts as a barcode? That would be so much easier.

Re:Normal activity for the body (2, Informative)

GrievousMistake (880829) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522727)

Yes, benevolent tumors exist. The summary specifies 'malignant, fast-growing, lethal cancers', though, which sounds pretty bad.
I can't find that exact quote in the article itself, nor anything specifically mentioning fast-growing and lethal, but they're pretty clear on the tumors in question being cancerous and malignant.

Malignant vs non-malignant (benign) (3, Insightful)

aepervius (535155) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522763)

Firstly there are all sort of tumor, but as far as this only means "abnormal tissue growth". The one which metastases and invade all tissue are malignant and left untreated as far as I can tell, always kill you, either by destroying utterly the organ they originate from or by metastasis. What you are thinking of is some sort of benign tumor which surround a foreign body. I dunno how often it happens, but usually what surround a foreign body is scar tissue, or even necrotic tissue, not tumoral tissue (biologist correct me). Tumoral tissue in that specific would happens only when the signal triggering the scar growth run awry or the stop signal is not detected sufficiently.

Now about tumor which removed, and suddenly become mortal (your second part). I call bullshit on that one. Some benign tumor might turn malignant with timem on their own, but not due to medicinal intervention as you seem to pretend. I can't also imagine a tumor left for many years and suddenly the doctor says "oh we need to take that out now, radio therapy and chemio !". I would say it is rather that the doctor detected that the tumor did go from benign to malignant and my guess is that since they knew he/she had a tumor for years most probably it is a skin tumor easy to detect and can be deadly if change are not detected quick enough (it happens. I had a naevus (big sort of mole 4 cm wide) which changed of texture when I was 13. Out of concern the oncologue ordered immediate chirurgy and a biopsy. From what I gathered it can happens that such a big mole with time turn malignant. Turn out that had to take a LOT of my left muscle out over 13 cm and more than 2 cm deep, but biopsy was negative. Relief ensured).

Bottom line : you are mixing up cause and effect. It was not the therapy which was caused your friend tumor to grow malignant, it was the tumor growing malignant which caused your friend go get a therapy which failed and he died.

PS: I say friend above, but it seems after rereading your post it was only an acquaintance , and thus the quality of the info your present is even doubly doubtful.

Re:Normal activity for the body (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522789)

Left untreated, most forms of cancer will eventually metastasize, though. My maternal grandfather died of cancer that he never had treated. Officially, the cause of death was 'brain cancer', but they don't know where it started since it had metastasized and gone to the lymph nodes. They're guessing that he had cancer for many, many years before it metastacized, though.

I guess it Just goes to show you (1)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522513)

When all your friends jump off a cliff, and you follow, you are just as phucked as they are.

Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20522575)

If an RFID chip is implanted, and never read, does it still cause cancer? :P

The pleasures of early adoption (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522611)

Now one cancer free with every 10th RFID implant!

Seriously, early adopters often get screwed, but it is their own fault. Remember all that X-Ray mania and how careful you have to be with X-Rays now?

Well, sorry Charlie... (2, Insightful)

dontspitconfetti (1153473) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522617)

but, we implanted one of these RFID chips while you were passed out last night. Tough luck, dude! But, seriously, couldn't there be a percentage of people that don't remember or don't even know they have these chips? That would be a scary thought...

No control group? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20522655)

From TFA: "none of the studies had a control group of animals that did not get chips"

I kid you not. No control group? How the hell did that kind of shoddy study even get funding? Did these people skip the day in second grade where they covered the Scientific Method? You're not even doing a study if you have no control group, you're just poking animals and writing about it.

Re:No control group? WTF? (2, Insightful)

ZombieWomble (893157) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522779)

Checking over the descriptions of the papers, it looks like they were trialling chips in large numbers of mice for other reasons, and apparently decided to knock out an extra paper with the "omg cancer!" angle to get some extra citations and some more funding in the future. Given the vast variation in results and lack of controls, these studies seem fairly unremarkable. There may be something there, but these studies really don't show anything meaningful.

Lack of Science. (4, Insightful)

edibobb (113989) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522711)

"none of the studies had a control group of animals that did not get chips, the normal rate of tumors cannot be determined and compared to the rate with chips implanted." The AP (and the Slashdot post) report this as if it were a fact that RFID emissions cause cancer. You cannot intelligently draw that conclusion from these studies, since there was no control group with inert RFIDs implanted. This is yet another inaccurate portrayal of an inconclusive, pseudo-scientific paper as fact. When I am emporer, I will require all journalists to take a remedial science course. "studies have shown..." == "here comes a crock..."

Re:Lack of Science. (2, Informative)

JoelKatz (46478) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522761)

It's not unusual to perform a study with no control group when you are looking for something rare and don't expect to find it. It's a lot cheaper and easier, and nine times out of ten provides equally good results. However, this is that one time in ten when it doesn't.

This will have to be followed up with larger studies with control groups and double-blind protocols. The reaction to this study should be to demand more and better studies.

Seems like a planted story to me.. (5, Informative)

Jerry (6400) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522713)

In the early 1980s RG Serle was in trouble. Their animal studies showed that Aspartame caused brain cancer. A Researcher for the company blew the whistle and Congress was investigating. RG Serle brought in a problem solver who began by throwing having the rats with brain cancers removed from the studies. The whistle blower, for some reason, reversed his statements. The acting head of the FDA approved Aspartame for human consumption, then resigned. A few weeks later he was announced as the head of the legal department of the new Nutrasweet corporation. His two assistants were the lawyers Congress assigned to investigate the RG Serle problem.

Shortly after that stories linking Saccharine with cancer flooded the media while the Nutrasweet corp flooded the media with stories about Nutrasweet and its safety. Within months the use of Saccharine plummeted to single digit figures and Nutrasweet took over the artificial sweetener market.

For his leadership RG Serle gave Donald Rumsfeldt a $6M retiring bonus.

I am waiting to hear of a competitive RFID chip entering the market. One that is "cancer free". Then I'll know who planted this story.

Re:Seems like a planted story to me.. (2, Interesting)

PMBjornerud (947233) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522981)

Aspartame is on my do-not-ingest list. Along with the other artificial sweeteners.

Call me crazy, but when I don't want sugar... I drink and eat things that aren't sweet. Mindboggling, I know...

I'll pass on the RFID for a while, too. I like my stuff "Tested on Humans" (TM), and there seem to be plenty of other people out there happily being my my guinea pigs.

Negative Reinforcement (1)

DumbSwede (521261) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522845)

Because of the Orwellian overtones of implanted RFID chips I'd say people are more likely to give these kind of research results more credence than they deserve. Even if, as seems most likely, this research is proved to be very flawed, RFID-chips-cause-cancer (RC^3) will be a meme that lives on and will resurface many times regardless of any validity.

Humans often believe things because the want to, not because they are true.

my take on this... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20522851)

fuck those muslim butchering bastards [wikipedia.org]
 
if you're a muslim you are guilty of the crimes of all muslims. burn in hell you barbaric fucking bastards. fucking cowards and bitches and whore. i hope you all die.

Hey Gates -- your next argument for immigration! (1)

Baldrson (78598) | more than 6 years ago | (#20522877)

Immigrants not only do jobs Americans won't do, they can be implanted with chips Americans won't take prior to embarking for the US.

So the X-Files had it backwards (1)

bikerider7 (1085357) | more than 6 years ago | (#20523005)

Scully got cancer because her implant was removed.

A Setback for Bioactive Glass...? (2, Interesting)

Telephone Sanitizer (989116) | more than 6 years ago | (#20523021)

Bioactive glass is a group of ceramic materials that are currently the subject of various studies related to bone-replacement and reconstructive surgery for (among others) persons who have had bone removed due to cancer.

New developments in making the materials with porous structures to stimulate bone growth have brought a spurt in the use of it as graft material and encouraged investigations into other medical uses, but I wonder now whether it and other silicates as a class pose a significant cancer risk, themselves.

Misleading summary (2, Informative)

ShatteredArm (1123533) | more than 6 years ago | (#20523065)

The Associated Press is reporting that microchip implants have induced cancer in laboratory animals and dogs.

TFA only mentions dogs in a few paragraphs, and only two cases of cancer near the chip have been reported in over 10,000 chipped dogs (only one of which is said to be linked in some way to the chip). It even says that the link between chips and cancer is not established in dogs, and that it is only something that should be studied more. So, yeah, the AP is not reporting that implants have induced cancer in dogs at all.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...